Nurse-led advance care planning with older people who have end-stage kidney disease: feasibility of a deferred entry randomised controlled trial incorporating an economic evaluation and mixed methods process evaluation (ACReDiT).
Advance care planning
Advance directives
End-of-life care
End-stage Kidney disease
Feasibility studies
Palliative care
Randomized controlled trial
Renal Dialysis
Journal
BMC nephrology
ISSN: 1471-2369
Titre abrégé: BMC Nephrol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967793
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 11 2020
13 11 2020
Historique:
received:
11
06
2020
accepted:
26
10
2020
entrez:
14
11
2020
pubmed:
15
11
2020
medline:
3
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Advance Care Planning is recommended for people with end-stage kidney disease but evidence is limited. Robust clinical trials are needed to investigate the impact of advance care planning in this population. There is little available data on cost-effectiveness to guide decision makers in allocating resources for advance care planning. Therefore we sought to determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial and to test methods for assessing cost-effectiveness. A deferred entry, randomised controlled feasibility trial, incorporating economic and process evaluations, with people with end-stage kidney disease, aged 65 years or older, receiving haemodialysis, in two renal haemodialysis units in Northern Ireland, UK. A nurse facilitator helped the patient make an advance care plan identifying: a surrogate decision-maker; what the participant would like to happen in the future; any advance decision to refuse treatment; preferred place of care at end-of-life. Recruitment lasted 189 days; intervention and data collection 443 days. Of the 67 patients invited to participate 30 (45%) declined and 36 were randomised to immediate or deferred advance care plan groups. Twenty-two (61%) made an advance care plan and completed data collection at 12 weeks; 17 (47.2%) were able to identify a surrogate willing to be named in the advance care plan document. The intervention was well-received and encouraged end-of-life conversations, but did not succeed in helping patients to fully clarify their values or consider specific treatment choices. There was no significant difference in health system costs between the immediate and deferred groups. A trial of advance care planning with participants receiving haemodialysis is feasible and acceptable to patients, but challenging. A full trial would require a pool of potential participants five times larger than the number required to complete data collection at 3 months. Widening eligibility criteria to include younger (under 65 years of age) and less frail patients, together with special efforts to engage and retain surrogates may improve recruitment and retention. Traditional advance care planning outcomes may need to be supplemented with those that are defined by patients, helping them to participate with clinicians in making medical decisions. Registered December 16, 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02631200 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Advance Care Planning is recommended for people with end-stage kidney disease but evidence is limited. Robust clinical trials are needed to investigate the impact of advance care planning in this population. There is little available data on cost-effectiveness to guide decision makers in allocating resources for advance care planning. Therefore we sought to determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial and to test methods for assessing cost-effectiveness.
METHODS
A deferred entry, randomised controlled feasibility trial, incorporating economic and process evaluations, with people with end-stage kidney disease, aged 65 years or older, receiving haemodialysis, in two renal haemodialysis units in Northern Ireland, UK. A nurse facilitator helped the patient make an advance care plan identifying: a surrogate decision-maker; what the participant would like to happen in the future; any advance decision to refuse treatment; preferred place of care at end-of-life.
RESULTS
Recruitment lasted 189 days; intervention and data collection 443 days. Of the 67 patients invited to participate 30 (45%) declined and 36 were randomised to immediate or deferred advance care plan groups. Twenty-two (61%) made an advance care plan and completed data collection at 12 weeks; 17 (47.2%) were able to identify a surrogate willing to be named in the advance care plan document. The intervention was well-received and encouraged end-of-life conversations, but did not succeed in helping patients to fully clarify their values or consider specific treatment choices. There was no significant difference in health system costs between the immediate and deferred groups.
CONCLUSIONS
A trial of advance care planning with participants receiving haemodialysis is feasible and acceptable to patients, but challenging. A full trial would require a pool of potential participants five times larger than the number required to complete data collection at 3 months. Widening eligibility criteria to include younger (under 65 years of age) and less frail patients, together with special efforts to engage and retain surrogates may improve recruitment and retention. Traditional advance care planning outcomes may need to be supplemented with those that are defined by patients, helping them to participate with clinicians in making medical decisions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registered December 16, 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02631200 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 33187506
doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-02129-5
pii: 10.1186/s12882-020-02129-5
pmc: PMC7663906
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02631200']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
478Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0901530
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Dunhill Medical Trust
ID : R428/0715
Références
Lancet. 2015 May 16;385(9981):1975-82
pubmed: 25777665
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018 Nov;56(5):795-807.e18
pubmed: 30025939
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012 Mar;27(3):879-81
pubmed: 22379182
Palliat Med. 2011 Dec;25(8):741-7
pubmed: 21993806
Br J Psychiatry. 1973 Oct;123(575):467-70
pubmed: 4748864
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 Apr;53(4):669-681.e8
pubmed: 28042072
BMJ. 2016 Oct 24;355:i5239
pubmed: 27777223
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jul 26;7:CD010737
pubmed: 27457661
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014 Jul;15(7):477-489
pubmed: 24598477
BMJ. 2001 Nov 10;323(7321):1123-4
pubmed: 11701584
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c1345
pubmed: 20332506
Lancet. 2020 Feb 29;395(10225):709-733
pubmed: 32061315
BMJ. 2013 Mar 25;346:f1049
pubmed: 23529982
Am J Kidney Dis. 2014 May;63(5):761-70
pubmed: 24434187
Br J Psychiatry. 2002 Jan;180:51-60
pubmed: 11772852
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 05;8(9):e72465
pubmed: 24039772
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018 Feb;55(2):236-244
pubmed: 28941964
Semin Dial. 2012 Nov-Dec;25(6):657-63
pubmed: 23173893
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Aug 17;153(4):256-61
pubmed: 20713793
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013 Sep;46(3):355-65
pubmed: 23200188
Nephrology (Carlton). 2013 Jun;18(6):393-400
pubmed: 23574050
Res Nurs Health. 2008 Apr;31(2):180-91
pubmed: 18183564
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Jun 1;178(6):792-799
pubmed: 29710217
Palliat Med. 2014 Sep;28(8):1000-25
pubmed: 24651708
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 Mar;13(3):337-9
pubmed: 15006905
BMC Nephrol. 2018 Jan 15;19(1):11
pubmed: 29334904
BMJ. 2013 Oct 21;347:f6064
pubmed: 24144870
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009 Jun;20(6):1199-209
pubmed: 19470680
Health Serv Manage Res. 2018 May;31(2):74-84
pubmed: 29707978
BMJ Open. 2014 Feb 18;4(2):e004251
pubmed: 24549162
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Dec;174(12):1994-2003
pubmed: 25330167
Kidney Int. 2015 Oct;88(4):859-66
pubmed: 26221754